Management of Employee Conduct: Agency, Case Study Example

Is Gimbel correct? [Mapp v Gimbel Dep’t Store]

The stand point taken by Gimbel on the issue is absolutely correct, since the issue of assault as claimed by MR Mapp was not committed by Gimbel as the principal. In this case the security guard, Mr Michael DiDomenico, is employed by JCPenney was acting in good faith to assist his security colleague, Ms. Federchok , the real agent of Gimbel. Therefore since the assault committed against Mr. Mapp emanated from a different agent, Gimbel is therefore legally correct to deny the charges of assault.

Under what theory might Mr. Mapp argue that Gimbel’s is liable for the assault committed against Mapp by Mr. DiDomenico, an employee of J.C. Penney’s?

Under the theory of aggravated assault, Mr Mapp may argue that Gimbel is liable for the assault committed against him. Under this theory, it may be assumed that Mr Michael DiDomenico was acting in the best interest of Gimbel by assisting his security colleague to ensure that that the shoplifter is apprehended by all means. The assumed act of aggravated assault committed against Mr. Mapp can be viewed as intentional act to cause him bodily harm by Gimbel’s agent.

Would Mr. Mapp be successful under the theory you chose? Why or why not?

Under the theory of aggravated assault, Mr Mapp may argue that his offender Mr. DiDomenico was acting under the interest of Gimbel as the principal, however, his success in this theory is very limited. Several grounds would deny Mr Mapp the anticipated success, for instance it is widely evident that Gimbel was not the legal principal of Mr. DiDomenico, and therefore the security worker acted on his own interest to assist his colleague. The other ground that would deny Mr. Mapp the anticipated success is that he trespassed on a private property and therefore Gimbel was legally right to defend his property.

The Lemon Tree Dilemma

What is one aspect of Title VII that has been violated by the company?

The aspect of Title VII that has been violated by the company is on the issue of equal employment opportunities whereby the two managers mentioned in the case did not ensure equal employment opportunity to everybody during recruitment. The managers were forced to favor certain individuals and thus ignoring the protected class of individuals which include the disabled people who also have equal employment opportunities in the organization. this practice although, left the two managers in dilemma but it was totally against the provisions of Title VII which promotes equal employment for all citizens regardless of their differences in race, ethnicity, gender, or disability.

Which actions by the two employees that call their credibility into question are you allowed, as an employer, to consider?

The actions practiced by the two employees which placed their credibility in question is hiring of employees of without embracing the issue of diversity that is eminent in the labor force in the country. This therefore shows that the two employees are very biased individuals who cannot promote equal treatment to all people regardless of their differences.

Or, what types of actions are you not allowed to use and why?

The type of actions that are not allowed include prejudice behavior against an employee which may discriminate him or her, biased treatment to employees on the basis of their age, sex, disability, race or nationality, these practices are not allowed since they lead to division and conflicts in an organization.

Are there any you wish you could use?

From the aforementioned practices, I do not wish to use any of them, since it is only against the law but also it will be against business ethics to promote such practice. It is very important to ensure equal treatment of employees in an organization to enhance peaceful coexistence among the employees and for the success of the organization.